Outofpatience12345

Welcome!

Hello, Outofpatience12345, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Steven Stayner. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Probability

There is a likelihood that your wish to exclude the material will win the day, but not a certainty. My view is that material that does gratuitous harm has no place on Wikipedia. It must serve an additional purpose for the greater good that is far larger than the harm it does for me to wish to include it. This material does have a small place, but in the Cary Stayner article, where it sets CS into some perspective. It seems to me to have no place on the SS article.

And, actually, you are the one being reasonable. You are new to Wikipedia and have been unfailingly civil in a difficult discussion. That shows an unusual behaviour here and is welcome. I am simply making a quiet judgment on the material in the article (or not) from the facts put before me. Fiddle Faddle 15:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle: I hope you'll see this message, Wikipedia is far more "complicated" than I first thought (and I learned Java, C# and PHP once ;D) but on your "talk page" you said that you would keep track of "the messages you left".

So... well, if (!) other users don't want to delete the article references completely then maybe (!) I will be okay with a compromise about them being mentioned on Cary's site. Of course I'd prefer it if they weren't reference anywhere but I'd rather have it there than on Steven's page. And if that happened I would still prefer a different "text" to go with it, because even though the article itself states what I'd been talking about before (that the witnesses were called by Cary's lawyers to "prove" that he came from a "messed-up family") most people probably don't even click on references to read the "source of some statement" itself. And the way it was worded before ("Steven was believed to have sexually abused them" ?) really is a problem. Believe me, if there was/were any other evidence or any actions that would suggest that it was true what the witnesses claimed to "know" (let's leave the fact aside that I've spoken to the family) then of course mentioning the allegations may be in the public interest, to help prevent child sexual abuse. Because of course I know that former victims often become predators themselves. Truth is: we cannot know how Steven would have turned out. He died. But I believe his family that he did not do anything like that during the few years of life he had (Additionally, even if I didn't know them their actions speak for themselves.. no abused child wants a statue of their abuser be made or state that their abuser/dad was "a hero" and say "I think about him/you every day and I love him/you so much" publicly - whether it is in front of reporters or on their own private social media profile pages). But Wikipedia should not be about the possibilty that he may have become a predator one day in the future but about what he did for a fact. And that is managing to survive a horrible ordeal and rescuing a young boy from a terrible fate; furthermore, testifying in court and speaking to children in schools to help prevent child kidnapping and abuse.

Oh my, this has become long again, you don't have to read :D Sorry ;) Outofpatience12345 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never quite believed the 'cycle of abuse' stuff. It never quite rings true. It feels like a weird excuse for those who are unreasonably interested in abuse to enjoy being more and more involved with the minutiae in a somewhat prurient manner. People know what is right and what is wrong and they make a conscious choice to abuse or not to abuse.

I agree with you intellectually over the children's reaction and statements. In Wikipedia terms that is, unfortunately, original research at worst, or a primary and unreliable source at best. Bizarrely, had a news outlet reported this it would then have been, probably, a reliable source. I imagine your head is now spinning.

Let's deal with one article at a time. The SS article is the one to work on to try to influence consensus to exclude the material. Once you have achieve that (possibly best by silence) then the CS article might have its wording clarified. Use care,though. One may not create material that is not in the source.

By the way, to ping me you need to ping my actual user name. use {{Ping|Timtrent}} and it will let me know for sure. I do check, and that is how I found this. Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Did I do it right? Yes, everyone has the choice of committing a crime (whether it's sexual abuse or something else) or not but there are a lot of criminals out there who had to experienced something similar in their childhood. That's all I am saying.. but those people often have other problems as well and there are more victims who never become a predator than victims who do.

Oh believe me, I get that this would be considered a "bad source or research", this is why I have troubles "proving" my point going by Wikipedia rules.. And of course Wikipedia has to have rules for editing articles, or otherwise every page would be a complete mess! But once statements with a "source according to rules", no matter how wrong the source itself may be, are posted, it is very hard to get it off, just as you said.

I will try to stay silent, I think it may be best, yes. I have presented my reasons to that user (and the rest of the community) and as long as he doesn't give an answer which seems to require another response from me, I will try to wait what time brings and what others may say about the matter.

And no, I was not planning on creating material that was not in the source... have you read the article? The words I was referring to were as follows: "defense attorneys [..] to show Stayner mercy by arguing that bad genes and a bad childhood turned their client into a criminal. Their witnesses have testified that mental illness and pedophilia go back in Stayner's family five generations." So that part about the lawyer's witnesses are actually in the article. That part with Steven and his kids is in the same article, a few paragraphs after that. Which makes me assume that it was the same witnesses.

Anyways, thank you again for your words and taking time to explain some things to me (I didn't really realise that it was you who made the "welcome" entry seen above, thanks for that!). Maybe I will take a look at other "talks" about Steven some day and maybe I can help you/the community out with some of them. I haven't looked at them yet though. Outofpatience12345 (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right. I have read very little of the sources. My interest in Steven is through a young man I met online many years ago whose life, he told me, was similar to Steven's (and he identified with him very strongly), except that he had not been abducted, but was abused by a family friend ages 7 through 14. I probably helped him not to kill himself by learning about SS and by showing him that he was worthwhile. My young friend married the mother of his child and his need to be online faded. I hope he is now as well adjusted as 'the next man'. Of course, online people are rarely in life as they present themselves online. For all I know the then 16 year old youth was a 70 year old lady with perplexing fantasies. There were sufficient inconsistencies in his story to make me consider the whole tale to be a fabrication. Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Oh my.. well you never know, sometimes online people are who they claim to be and sometimes it's like you said.. I haven't met a lot of people in real life who I was only talking to online before yet but those who I did meet turned out the be who and how they claimed to be. So maybe he did tell you the truth and you safed his life by helping him through his hard times! And if he/whoever made everything up... well then that person should be ashamed because one certainly should not make up lies and esp. not about things like that.Outofpatience12345 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)